AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database positions these two GPUs at opposite ends of the mobile and workstation performance spectrum. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the clear victor in every measurable category, with an average benchmark score of 5467 compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M265's 4929. The Quadro M4000 sits in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R7 M265 lands in the 29th percentile, a modest gap that widens dramatically in compute workloads.

For users needing professional-grade rendering, compute, or multi-display output, the Quadro M4000 is the only defensible choice. Its 8 GB GDDR5 memory, 256-bit bus, and 192.3 GB/s bandwidth dwarf the Radeon's 2 GB DDR3 and 28.80 GB/s. The Radeon R7 M265, with its 384 shading units and 633.6 GFLOPS FP32 throughput, targets light mobile use cases where power efficiency and compactness matter more than raw output. The data shows no scenario where the Radeon outperforms the Quadro; it is a legacy entry-level part, while the Quadro remains a capable workstation card.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M4000 wins on every benchmark where both have recorded scores. In the single shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 19118 against the Radeon's 4929, a 287.9% lead. That is not a marginal edge; it is a generational and architectural chasm.

For the Quadro, the wins span the entire benchmark suite. Its Passmark G3D score of 6680, DirectX 9 score of 113, and GPU compute score of 2660 all point to a card built for sustained professional workloads. The Radeon R7 M265 has no recorded score in any DirectX or Passmark test, meaning the database shows no use case where it competes on equal footing.

The Radeon's only advantage is implicit: it is a smaller, lower-power part with a 77 mm² die and 950 million transistors, versus the Quadro's 398 mm² and 5,200 million. For a thin laptop with modest cooling, the Radeon fits where the Quadro cannot. But in raw performance, the Radeon does not win a single recorded test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The Quadro M4000 uses NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the GM204 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Radeon R7 M265 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on the Opal chip, also 28 nm at TSMC, but with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for 12.3 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Quadro has 1664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Radeon has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate for the Quadro is 49.47 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s for the Radeon. Texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 2.573 TFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is equally divergent. The Quadro uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for 192.3 GB/s. The Radeon uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro also supports higher API levels: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Quadro is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Radeon has no recorded slot width, power connector, PSU suggestion, or display outputs, reflecting its mobile integration. The Quadro uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface; the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance?

A: The Quadro M4000 delivers 2.573 TFLOPS FP32, while the Radeon R7 M265 delivers 633.6 GFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 19118 versus 4929, a 287.9% advantage.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro has 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon has 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s. That is a 6 GB capacity gap and over 6x bandwidth difference.

Q: Can the Radeon run DirectX 12 titles?

A: Yes, but at a lower feature level. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro's Vulkan support is 1.4 versus 1.2.170 for the Radeon.

Q: Which card is more suitable for a workstation?

A: The Quadro M4000. It has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a single-slot form factor, and a 120 W TDP with a 300 W suggested PSU. The Radeon has no recorded display outputs or power specifications, indicating a mobile design.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card according to the database?

A: The Quadro's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M440, with an average score of 5483, a 0.3% delta. The Radeon's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M360, with an average score of 4931, a 0% delta.

Q: Is the Radeon R7 M265 competitive in any benchmark?

A: No. The database records only one benchmark for the Radeon (Geekbench OpenCL), and the Quadro wins it by 287.9%. The Radeon has no recorded wins in any test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro M4000 scores 19118, while the Radeon R7 M265 scores 4929. The delta is 287.9% in favor of the Quadro. This is not a close race; it is a complete sweep.

Looking at the Quadro's broader benchmark profile, its Passmark G3D score of 6680, Passmark G2D score of 673, and Passmark GPU compute score of 2660 demonstrate consistent strength across 2D, 3D, and compute workloads. The Radeon has no equivalent recorded data. Its only score, 4929 in Geekbench OpenCL, falls below the Quadro's Passmark G3D result, underscoring the performance gap.

The Quadro's nearest rivals in the database, the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (average 5483, delta 0.3%) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (average 5501, delta 0.6%), are all within a 1% band. That means the Quadro sits in a crowded mid-range cluster. The Radeon's nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (average 4931, delta 0%) and AMD FirePro W5130M (average 4904, delta 0.5%), also form a tight group, but at a much lower absolute level.

The takeaway: the Quadro is competitive with its immediate peers, while the Radeon is competitive with its own lower-tier peers. Neither card is an outlier in its class, but the two classes are separated by a wide margin in the database's measurements.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: GM204 (NVIDIA) vs Opal (AMD)
• Architecture: Maxwell 2.0 vs GCN 1.0
• Generation: Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) vs Gem System (R7 M200)
• Transistors: 5,200 million vs 950 million
• Die Size: 398 mm² vs 77 mm²
• Transistor Density: 13.1M / mm² vs 12.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: Not recorded vs 725 MHz
• Boost Clock: Not recorded vs 825 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) vs 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective)
• Memory Size: 8 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Bus Width: 256 bit vs 128 bit
• Bandwidth: 192.3 GB/s vs 28.80 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1664 vs 384
• TMUs: 104 vs 24
• ROPs: 64 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 49.47 GPixel/s vs 6.600 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 80.39 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.573 TFLOPS vs 633.6 GFLOPS
• TDP: 120 W vs not recorded
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs not recorded
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin vs not recorded
• Suggested PSU: 300 W vs not recorded
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 vs not recorded
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan: 1.4 vs 1.2.170
• Dimensions: 241 mm length, 111 mm height vs not recorded
• Release Date: 2015-06-28 vs 2014-01-08
• Predecessor: Quadro Kepler vs Solar System
• Successor: Quadro Pascal vs Polaris Mobile
• Average Benchmark Score: 5467 vs 4929
• Percentile: 32nd vs 29th